Slashdot Mirror
House Republicans Roll Out Legislation To Overturn New Net Neutrality Rules
An anonymous reader writes: U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and 31 Republican co-sponsors have submitted the Internet Freedom Act (PDF) for consideration in the House. The bill would roll back the recent net neutrality rules made by the FCC. The bill says the rules "shall have no force or effect, and the Commission may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as such rule, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act." Blackburn claims the FCC's rules will "stifle innovation" and "restrict freedom." The article points out that Blackburn's campaign and leadership PAC has received substantial donations. from Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon.
They could write legislation about anything and expect us to like it because it has a word in it like "freedom" or "patriot". Imagine: The Hero's Freedom Act. Sounds good, right? It could also potentially describe a bill that calls some group heroes while empowering them to take the freedom of others. That would be a hero's freedom act, technically.
Actually, that has more to do with freedom than this does. What they meant to call it is the "Internet Just Give Us Your Wallets And Shut Up Act".
LOL! Freedom for the carriers and big business to make more money.
I'd like to see multiple ISP block all content and websites associated with those politicians and their political party. Especially during an election to give them a dose of their own medicine. See this is what can potentially happen to you if net neutrality is prevented. Eventually become as censored as China.
There are a lot of issues with it.
I'd like it if the whole thing were nothing but unicorns and rainbows. But the secrecy is not a good sign and we need to think to the future... the FCC might do something good with this today... but the government has a tendency to push the bounds of their authority.
They get some power to take the goods away from drug dealers and before you know it they're confiscating the homes of poor people with basically no justification.
They get the mandate to go after terrorists and a few years later the NSA agents are spying on ex girlfriends using the government terror databases and NSA agents are putting ex wives on no fly lists.
The internet is a big deal. And I just don't want the FCC to ruin it.
I hate the big ISPs too. Everyone does. But the solution to them is competition. Not government regulation. Just remove the stupid laws that make it illegal for rival companies to lay cable in their territory.
Here someone will say those laws don't exist. Both Google and Centurylink were recently complaining about just such laws. So either they do exist or those companies were lying.
Its a real thing. Possibly the new FCC regulations will settle that issue. Which if that was all they were doing would be fine by me. But I worry about the unintended consequences and the long term power creep. The FCC could be a white knight today... but tomorrow? You don't know.
The whole thing could be a devil's bargain. You get something you want today... and later... your soul is forfeit.
You can't say it isn't going to happen... they're keeping the regs secret. That in and of itself is suspicious.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I agree it likely wouldn't make it out of Congress let alone past the President, but how do you figure it won't make it to the floor of at least the House?
Unless your link is bad, what you read there is NOT "these rules". It is a description of what the "rules" are meant to accomplish.
And even if these are the "rules" you think they are, note that they specifically set aside the question of how to actually pay for this regulation for discussion at a later time.
For the record, I'm pretty much indifferent to the whole issue, as long as it doesn't increase my monthly internet bill. Though I do find myself curious how you can have tiered service (pay X for Ymbits/sec throughput, or pay 2X for twice that) under these guidelines, since they explicitly disallow paying extra for faster service.
Also for the record, I expect that within a year, it WILL increase my monthly internet bill. I've never met a bureaucrat yet that didn't like a few more dollars of taxes collected.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The pay for speed guidelines cover content providors, not end users. Also what is there to pay for?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Campaign Donations Appreciation Act
Corporate Fascism Reinforcement Act
Fuck the People Act
Get off your butts. Instead of whining on a forum spend the next 2 minutes of your life emailing your representative for the American slashdotter.
Remember these legislators only hear and get their information from lobbyists and pacs.
Tell them it is not acceptable to have a monopoly cut off your Netflix. If your representative has an R tell him or her that there is no free market and it harms innovation and our economy as a result. If he or she has a D explain monopolistic powers and pacs are writing rules.
Yes they check with their staff all day. If they get a surge of angry citizens they will notice. Remember the law to ban opensource and force drm? I posted that link and the bill died. We can change this if we act together. Religious right did this and won. It's time geeks do the same
http://saveie6.com/
I expect that ISPs will add a "fee" for net neutrality compliance. This fee will have zero connection to any taxes or costs incurred by ISPs -- it will be a hidden price increase and extra profits by ISPs.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Straight up bribery.
So now a small number of companies has more sway with this "politician" then the record breaking response the FCC received on this issue. Less then 1% of the FCC's response were against Net Neutrality, but because this Congressman's PAC received $81,000 AT&T, Comcast, the NCTA and Verizon, he feels that this is what the American people want?
Right.
Straight up bribery, and nothing will ever be done about it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No, more like 1930s America. It's almost-legalised protection rackets. "Hey netflix, it would be a shame if something happened to your shop windows, wouldn't it. We'll take cash to help make sure that doesn't happen."
It won't. That's the entire point. People like his friend have been brainwashed into thinking anything that isn't 100% pro-corporation is tantamount to communism even when the very same corporations are routinely fucking him over.
Other than for the media companies, I can't see a downside to treating broadband access like a utility, especially since the FCC has waived the right to regulate prices. A broadband service routes packets into and out of your house, just like a water, electric or gas utility. AT&T's packets should not be any different than Verizon's packets, or Comcast's packets...it's the equivalent of the local loop from a CLEC.
It seems to me that shaking up the incumbents in some markets would be a good thing. It would probably operate the same way "competitive" gas service does now -- if someone hates their provider enough or finds a cheaper price for the exact same service, they can sign up to have another company provide it. This would be a good model to keep decent providers running, but put some limits on the Comcasts and Time Warner Cables of the world. Also, forcing some kind of universal service would mean that rural customers would get better network access. Carriers only upgrade networks when forced, and only like to operate in places where it's easy to operate...other than profits, this is probably one thing they're worried about. That, and Comcast is probably worried that Joe's Cable Shack is going to take all the business from people who don't need TV with their Internet service.
I'm also not really buying the "innovation" angle. At the core, networks are plumbing. DSL, DOCSIS, and of course Ethernet are pretty mature standards. Occasionally materials and computing advances allow for faster data rates, but these are open standards that every carrier would have access to.
Then fuck you and you deserve to get shitty internet at an overpriced rate.
Let me further point out that if lots of companies wanted to do that, we'd design the system differently so that it could handle more cable being run through it without disturbing people.
The most sensible solution would be to have a conduit system. You just run the cable through and can access it via manholes. You wouldn't need to dig anything up to change it or add cable. You'd just run the cable into the conduit system through the manholes. The disruption would be minor.
But seriously... fuck you. :-D
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
These rules prevent that. Without these rule that is possible, with these rules it is not possible. The ISPs are not allowed to slow down content or charge for faster delivery of content (same thing in practice) but they can still charge end users in a tiered manner.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
You are hoplessly naive. In order to compete with incumbent ISPs you have to have massive resources. If you start with small, local deployments, the incumbents will make local price cuts to drive you out of business. Even if you have the resources to make deployments across most population centers in a short time, the result will be lower prices and no profits. If you just built out, your equipment costs will be much greater than incumbents.
The only way to get competition is to force unbundling of local loops. This means more regulation.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
There's prima facie evidence of consumer harm.
Comcast willfully interfered with a business relationship they weren't a party to further their own enrichment, Comcast willfully degraded the service provided to their customers as a means to pressure a competitor of video services, and consumers will likely see price increases as Netflix's costs rise to accommodate payments to Comcast.
If UPS were to erect roadblocks in front of Fedex terminals and refuse to remove them unless Fedex paid them off, we'd rightly call that extortion, regardless of whether they resolved it "within the existing legal framework".
And if the local government was bribed to give exclusive access to the duopoly then I guess you're just gravy with that whole system.
It is precisely this sort of silliness that has allowed the duopolies to operate.
All the cities need to do is provide right of way to ANY ISP. By all means, charge a fee to run cable. Make it the same fee for everyone though and make it proportional to what that ISP is using. If I run a cable down two blocks, I expect to pay fees for two blocks.
If all of this is just too confusing for the stupid incompetent lazy fuck politicians in "name the city" to figure out then outsource administration of it to a neutral third party. Say a company that isn't any of the ISPs but perhaps just manages this sort of thing so the incompetent fucks in city hall don't have to worry about it.
There are a lot of ways to make this work. But one thing that has become extremely clear is that the poles and conduits need to be opened up so that more ISPs can run competing cable.
THAT is how you break the duopoly. Anything short of that is just legislative masturbation.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As all these extra cables are not needed for providing service, their sole purpose is to feed some free market fundamentalist pipe dream. The more sensible solution is to have only one provider for each type of cable technology, and have sensible regulations in place to make sure that there is a competitive market for service providers. Saves a lot of money, as otherwise you will be paying in some way for the twenty identical cables going to your house.
I think that's mostly it, it's this refusal to acknowledge that at scale, corporations are as much (if not a greater) risk to freedom as government. Probably even greater risk when collusion with government is part of the equation and you take into consideration the effects of monopoly power, the lack of democratic redress, etc.
...which is why I emailed Rep. Latta (co-sponsor) and Rep Joyce (my rep from Ohio) and let them know that I vote, I elected one of them, and I don't support any action to reverse the FCC's recent reclassification.
I know I don't represent big bags of money, but I do directly represent a ballot. I let both of them know that I am a US Army veteran, a long-time IT professional, and a proponent of net neutrality and classifying internet service under Title II.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
I hate the big ISPs too. Everyone does. But the solution to them is competition. Not government regulation. Just remove the stupid laws that make it illegal for rival companies to lay cable in their territory.
Those laws don't exist in general. The primary thing preventing Time Warner from running cable to my house is the fact that Comcast already has a wire there. Comcast has already spent the millions of dollars required to wire my neighborhood, and the tens of millions required to wire my town. Whatever price Time Warner can offer, Comcast can beat, because they've already sunk costs. Time Warner can, optimistically, hope to get 50% of cable subscribers, meaning at most half the revenue that Comcast projected to pay off their capital. There is no way for a new cable company to compete effectively with one that's already laid out the major capital expenses. The only reason DSL is competitive is it doesn't require laying new copper to every home.
Likewise, there's no way multiple electric or gas companies could compete with an incumbent who had already wired/plumbed a neighborhood. When cities deregulate gas/electric service, they do so by transferring the wires to one company, and forcing that company to sell transit to all comers at regulated rates. If you want to see competition among ISPs, nationalize the coax, copper and fiber, and let the ISPs rent bandwidth to subscribers' homes and manage their access.
I predict that your monthly internet bill will increase regardless of these regulations. Because inflation. And greed. And because they can.
You're a dumbass if you didn't think of that first, and if you did, you're being a disingenuous asshole. So which is it?
Now, this is where the bullshit starts: Netflix passes the cost for the Comcast toll on to both you and ME, even though I'm not a Comcast customer, and this toll did nothing to increase MY speed. In fact, I already had to pay extra to my ISP to get my speed fixed.
As a Comcast customer, it's also bullshit. I'm *already* paying them for my internet service, so if part of my Netflix bill is going to pay protection money to Comcast (and, that's what this is: a protection racket) I'm paying Comcast twice. I fundamentally have a problem with that.
Do you have ESP?
The conservative bias is "don't regulate what you don't have to,"
s/what you don't have to/at all/
Republicans know that if government doesn't do regulation, the monopoly or cartel that owns the market sure will (and such regulation is optimized to maximize profits, not the health of the market, much less *customer* health).
And thats where the congresscritters get their campaign funding. Sounds pretty clear to me what their goal is - just like their funders, it's to line their pockets.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
You're confusing QoS and net neutrality. As long as they treat torrent traffic equal to other torrent traffic, they are meeting the regulations.
A 5 page summary is not what was voted on. What was voted on was a draft 332 page set of regulations. But nice try.